A judge on Monday allowed Julia Ormond to proceed with allegations that Disney and CAA failed to protect her from Harvey Weinstein in the mid-90s.
Suzanne J. Adams, a state court justice in Manhattan, denied the companies’ motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which claims that the entertainment conglomerate and the agency enabled Weinstein’s predatory behavior because he “made them too much money.”
Ormond sued the companies last October, alleging that Weinstein sexually assaulted her in New York in December 1995. CAA represented Ormond the the time, and had negotiated a deal for her at Weinstein’s company, Miramax, which was owned by Disney. Miramax was also named as a defendant.
The British actress rose to stardom in the mid-90s with lead roles in “Sabrina” and “Legends of the Fall.” She alleges that after the assault, her CAA agents, Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane, discouraged her from reporting the incident because it would damage her career, and she would not be believed.
Ormond alleges that CAA subsequently lost interest in representing her, and her career suffered as a result.
Weinstein has denied assaulting Ormond. CAA has also denied that Ormond brought the allegation to her agents at the time, saying that Huvane and Lourd only learned of it when Ormond’s lawyers sent a pre-litigation demand letter.
Both CAA and Disney have stated that the lawsuit does not show that either of them knew of Weinstein’s history of sexual assault before the December 1995 meeting.
In its motion to throw out the suit, CAA argued that Ormond was suing “the wrong defendant,” and that the agency “had no reason to believe there was any risk to Plaintiff in arranging a business dinner with Weinstein.”
In denying the motion, Adams found that Ormond had made a plausible claim that CAA’s reaction showed it was aware of Weinstein’s conduct. The judge also noted the allegation that a year before the assault, Weinstein had propositioned another CAA client, offering her career opportunities in exchange for sex. The complaint alleges that CAA likewise discouraged that client from complaining.
“These allegations, taken together, suggest that CAA knew or had reason to know of a potential assault by Weinstein,” the judge wrote.
Disney also argued that even though Miramax was a subsidiary at the time, it did not have supervisory control over Weinstein’s behavior. The judge found that Ormond’s lawyers offered enough evidence, including that Weinstein signed an employment agreement with Disney, to allow the claim against Disney to proceed.
Adams also denied Miramax’s motion to throw out the lawsuit.
“Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Weinstein used his position at Miramax, and his power to greenlight financing on her project per her film production agreement with Miramax, to facilitate his assault on her,” the judge wrote.
Ormond filed the suit under the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law that revived lawsuits that otherwise would have been barred by the statute of limitations.
Source Agencies
